Conrad, your point about "age set music" makes a supposition that "folk" music fits that description. I would argue that it does not.

If you look up the definition of "folk" music in American Heritage you will find
"1. Music originating among the common people of a nation or region and spread about or passed down orally, often with considerable variation.
2. Contemporary music in the style of traditional folk music. "

While #2 is certainly a mine field for arguements, I think that #1 says a lot about the style. What Springsteen AND Seeger have done is to pass the music (orally if we consider modern recordings to be a mode of transmission) and they have introduced variables.

The music that many people relate to when you mention "folk" is either traditional field recordings or music that grew out of the Revival period of the 1950's - 1960's. I would agree that these styles are "age set".   People have seen the beauty of these styles and are comfortable listening to and creating music in that style.

If you really look at what Seeger and now Springsteen have show us, it is the joy of creating music. This is not "translating", it is merely an extension of the oral process. In modern terms, we are witnessing how variations are created. Sure there is a commercial vent to it, but if you can get beyond that you will see what is being accomplished.

Folk music is a tool. When I go to a musuem, I can see a painting that was done 100 years ago and appreciate it for the beauty. It is something that makes me happy and I learn from. If I had any artistic skills, I might try to replicate the style in my own work.    Music is an art. I think it is important to honor the original style, but also to allow the freedom for the song to continue to speak. This is not "translating", it is allowing the freedom that is inherent in the form to continue to grow. THAT is the beauty of folk music.